WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED DUPLICATE of
bug 177473
177568
default_construct_at
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177568
Summary
default_construct_at
JF Bastien
Reported
2017-09-27 14:08:13 PDT
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177473
has so pretty ugly code to default construct a generic ArrayPtr<T>: new (&container.get()[i]) std::remove_reference_t<decltype(*container.get())>(); Let's add default_construct_at, which jyasskin suggested I do.
Attachments
patch
(1.60 KB, patch)
2017-09-27 14:10 PDT
,
JF Bastien
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
JF Bastien
Comment 1
2017-09-27 14:10:33 PDT
Created
attachment 322015
[details]
patch
Build Bot
Comment 2
2017-09-27 14:12:08 PDT
Attachment 322015
[details]
did not pass style-queue: ERROR: Source/WTF/wtf/StdLibExtras.h:164: default_construct_at is incorrectly named. Don't use underscores in your identifier names. [readability/naming/underscores] [4] Total errors found: 1 in 2 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
JF Bastien
Comment 3
2017-09-28 11:34:43 PDT
cdumez suggested I do this change straight in #177473 and use it there. Closing to do that instead. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of
bug 177473
***
Darin Adler
Comment 4
2017-11-22 11:30:00 PST
Comment on
attachment 322015
[details]
patch Unlike the others who commented on this, I do think this might possibly make some call sites a little easier to read, and why not get on board now if it’s the future of C++ anyway. But I don’t think we should land the change without using it anywhere.
Darin Adler
Comment 5
2017-11-22 11:30:20 PST
Oh, this bug is obsolete. Clearing the flags.
JF Bastien
Comment 6
2017-11-27 10:03:32 PST
(In reply to Darin Adler from
comment #4
)
> Comment on
attachment 322015
[details]
> patch > > Unlike the others who commented on this, I do think this might possibly make > some call sites a little easier to read, and why not get on board now if > it’s the future of C++ anyway. But I don’t think we should land the change > without using it anywhere.
I liked it too, it made the sample code way more readable, but it's admittedly a rare thing so I'm happy not pushing it and leaving the obscure placement new code as-is.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug